Morgan: Constitutional reform — getting the balance right for the future of the UK

Speech to the National Assembly for Wales.

"I brought this debate forward for three reasons. The first of those is the concern that I have about the rather sloppy nature of constitutional reform that the UK Government has brought forward and the potential strain that it will put on the UK as a whole.

The second reason is that the constitution is by no means settled, and the third is that this is a chance for me to state my view. Many Assembly Members have been stating their opinions on the future of devolution in Wales and I thought that it was perhaps time that I said what I thought—not being one to stand back from expressing my opinions.

The decade that has passed since the referendum has been a decade of unprecedented constitutional change. One thing that was clear in 1997 was that the new UK Labour Government was embarking on a process of change that it did not understand, and it failed to realise the consequences of the changes that it would introduce, not just for Wales and Scotland and then Northern Ireland, but for the relationship between Wales and Scotland as nations, as well as for England, because, of course, we cannot and should not forget that the United Kingdom is made up of four nations, one of which is currently at a substantial disadvantage in terms of the way in which constitutional reform has been tackled.

Little thought was given by the Government to how the resulting democratic deficit would be resolved and what balance should be introduced to redress the added tier of representation, particularly for Wales and Scotland. In fairness to the Labour Party, it managed to turn the West Lothian question from a largely academic debate to a principle that now threatens the fabric of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The result of that hurried constitutional meddling and misjudgment would, as my party predicted at the time, lead to the thin-end of an anti-unionist wedge, giving the short-sighted, narrow-minded parochialism of Plaid Cymru—who seem to have left the building—and the Scottish National Party the soap box that it needed.

This is not the fault of the existence of the Assembly or the Scottish Parliament—far from it. Devolution was a necessary step, and I believe that my party was wrong at the time to lead the opposition to it—hindsight is a perfect science—although that is by no means a criticism of my good friend and leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Nick Bourne. However, in hindsight we potentially did some damage to ourself as a party by leading the 'no' vote.

The problem and potential undoing of the devolution project, or the union itself, is the void left by the voting arrangements here and in Westminster. Labour gave our nation a halfway house with devolution in order to hold the various factions of the Labour Party together in 1997.

What we got was not quite proper devolution with a meaningful autonomous remit allowing this institution to carve out its own legislative niche. It left the Welsh people asking what Scotland has that we have not. There is a problem in that regard, because, after the referendum and the election in 1999, many people looked at what had happened in Scotland and asked that simple question.

It was not based on ân understanding of the constitutional settlement or on the involvement of politics and the engagement that the referendum brought-it was simply a question based on pride. Why was Wales given this rather second-class settlement compared with Scotland? That question is still valid today.

While Labour in Westminster hurried through one of the most important Welsh political developments of the past 100 years, Welsh Labour only exacerbated the constitutional rift with its best shot—clear red water—as if that was the best response to some of the constitutional confusion that existed as a result of the settlement.

Whether we in Wales like it or not, the calls are growing to redress the imbalance in the United Kingdom constitution between the UK as an entity and the nations of the UK. No-one can criticise English voters for being somewhat irked at seeing Welsh and Scottish MPs being marched through the lobbies at Westminster to force through health and education legislation that would have no impact on their constituents.

Had it not been for Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs, the UK Government would not have introduced top-up fees in England—they would not have won the vote had it not been for Welsh and Scottish Labour MPs who were marched through the lobbies to vote it through.

It is thanks to the mishandling of the devolution project that such questions about the interaction between Welsh, Scottish and English MPs are now being asked. They are not being asked by politicians, but by the wider population of the UK—those people in England who find it rather perverse that Welsh and Scottish Labour MPs can influence health and education matters in England, but that English MPs cannot affect matters devolved to Wales and Scotland.

I support extending the powers of the Assembly to mirror the arrangement in Scotland. I would vote 'yes' in a referendum and I believe that the majority of Welsh voters would do likewise, regardless of the wonderful convention of the great and the good planned by the One Wales, Labour-led, Labour-driven, Plaid-driven or Plaid-directed—as Alun Ffred Jones seemed to put it this week—Government.

This coalition Government seems to think that just because we can blow £2.5 million of taxpayers' money on a convention of the great and the good, it will somehow increase the demand for a parliament for Wales. I think that if the Labour Party, Plaid Cymru and other parties believe that Wales will be better served by having a parliament similar to Scotland's, then we should be making the case for it and arguing for it now. If we want primary powers, let us have the referendum and let us see those politicians arguing for it have the courage of their convictions and leading the campaign.

That would be a better outcome for Wales, by having a healthy debate, and not just some convention of the great and the good which will simply tell us what we already know.

This debate, however, is not just about the future of the National Assembly for Wales. It is about a far greater principle: the future of the United Kingdom. It is to secure the future of the union of the United Kingdom that I support a settled constitution that will balance the interests of each of the home nations without leaving any under-represented. Doing nothing is simply not an option, but the issue is something that the UK Government under Gordon Brown seems willing to ignore.

Thankfully, however, my party seems willing to tackle it. No-one in their right mind can sensibly argue that Wales would be better off with total independence, but we have to address and accept that the English question, within a settled constitution, needs to be resolved. English-only votes, as recommended by David Cameron, will work, and it is a proposal that I support. It will only work of course if matters such as health and education are fully devolved to this institution and if primary powers settle the grey areas that currently exist.

In the past eight years, I have had the privilege of shadowing the Ministers with responsibility for health and education, and I think it unacceptable that the present situation of a mix of responsibilities in these fields is maintained. It is extremely confusing, and not just for politicians, but for those outside the Assembly who deliver services and for members of the public affected by those services.

It is confusing to them that we have these substantial grey areas, and if we were to see primary legislative powers in those areas in which we already have competence, it would settle the constitution, but we cannot do that without addressing the situation in England.

We also need to see the Government addressing what role the Secretary of State for Wales will have should Wales have a parliament. We have seen rather a botched situation in the past few years with Peter Hain juggling Northern Ireland, the role of Leader of the House and responsibility for work and pensions, as well as supposedly having time to represent Welsh interests at this critical time for Wales.

Representation at Cabinet is an important consideration, but we now need to think beyond that and consider what the governance of the UK will look like if a referendum is held in 2011 and if it is then decided that primary powers for the Assembly is the way in which we should proceed.

It is crucial that political parties, here and in London, take decisive action to work towards a better balance than we have now, to start resolving the West Lothian question before such matters are out of our control. I firmly endorse David Cameron's view. It is sensible that our party is now taking a pragmatic approach to bringing balance to the United Kingdom's constitution.

I argue for a federal system not because I am a pro-federalist politician or a Welsh nationalist in Tory clothing, but because of the lack of stability, the lack of settlement, and the preponderance of constitutional imbalance which, I think, is creating the greatest threat to the United Kingdom.

English votes for English issues alone will not answer the West Lothian question; the UK Government must also look at the prospect of electoral parity between English and Welsh constituencies—or, certainly, it should start moving in that direction.

We cannot ignore the fact that the average constituency electorate in Wales is 55,000 while it is over 70,000 in England. If this institution is to develop into a Welsh parliament, then we need to start addressing the fact that Wales is over-represented in the House of Commons.

To address these constitutional issues for the future security of the union, we must have foremost in our minds a vision that will most closely settle the imbalances on either side of the Welsh-English border, forming a lasting bond that will protect our union for decades, if not centuries, to come.

If the Labour Party's recent record is anything to go by on honouring the promises of referenda or, indeed, seeking to address the wishes of the electorate before ploughing ahead, I would be rather concerned, as Plaid Cymru clearly is, that 'One Wales' is very unlikely to be worth the paper that it is written on.

Clearly, Labour here and Labour in Westminster are holding two very different views on when that referendum should happen. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Wales is comfortable with being bounced into taking a decision.

A referendum for Wales needs to be accompanied by consideration of the English question and the over-representation of Wales in the House of Commons. Labour does not have the courage to address the big constitutional issues of the day.

That is very clear given the problems it now has in holding to a particular line on where devolution goes. It is also clear in the way that Gordon Brown is unwilling to deal with the question of the English position.

I welcome the bold aspirations of my colleagues in Westminster to address these issues. I am proud of the positive engagement my party has forged with the devolution project in Wales. I am proud of the ambition of my leader here in Wales in wanting to realise the potential of this institution. There is wide recognition that it will be a Conservative Government in the not too distant future that will resolve the governance issues of the UK and secure the union of our great country for centuries to come."